DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court sets new limits on affirmative action programs in landmark ruling

The Supreme Court on Thursday set new limits on affirmative action programs in cases involving whether public and private colleges and universities can continue to use race as one factor among many in student admissions.

The court held, in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The blockbuster cases put affirmative action, which has been used for decades by colleges and universities to address inequality and diversify their campuses, in the spotlight. The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled since 1978 schools may consider the race of applicants in pursuing educational benefits from a diverse student body, so long as they did not use a quota system.

Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative group, sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina over their race-conscious admissions programs, alleging intentional discrimination toward Asian American applicants.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the group in a decision that will have major ramifications for the college admissions process in the U.S.

"Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points," Roberts wrote. "We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today."

"At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise," Roberts continued.

The court said that it has "permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and -- at some point -- they must end."

The ruling appears to preserve consideration of race in a narrowly tailored way, as in through an applicant's essay.

Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court's decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress."

"It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits," she wrote. "In so holding, the court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...mative-action-programs/story?id=99230954

Supreme Court restricts race-based affirmative action in college admissions


The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that relied in part on racial considerations, saying they violate the Constitution.

The votes split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Roberts said the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”

But he added that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “Equal educational opportunity is a prerequisite to achieving racial equality in our Nation."

“Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits. In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, although Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case because she served on a board at the university.

The justices deciding whether affirmative action recognizes and nourishes a multicultural nation, or impermissibly divides Americans by race, represent the most diverse Supreme Court in history.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime opponent of affirmative action who for decades was in the minority on the issue, took the unusual step of reading from his concurring opinion immediately after Roberts read the majority’s decision.

In his concurring opinion, he directly engaged with Jackson, one of the court’s most liberal members, and the only other Black justice. In Jackson’s view, “almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race,” Thomas wrote.

Jackson’s dissent responds to what she called Thomas’s “prolonged attack."

”With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat," Jackson wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

As recently as 2016, the court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Texas, concluding for the third time that educational diversity justifies the consideration of race as one factor in admission decisions.

But Sotomayor is the only justice remaining on the court from that slim 4-3 majority. At the time, conservative activist Edward Blum, who brought previous challenges to the practice, was already working on new lawsuits he could present to a rebuilt court.

In the North Carolina case, his group Students for Fair Admissions said the flagship university’s policies discriminated against White and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones.

The case against Harvard accused the university of discriminating against Asian American students by employing subjective standards to limit the numbers accepted.

Challengers say that under the equal protection clause, government-run universities like UNC cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. Harvard is not subject to that constitutional clause, but must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute prohibits racial discrimination in the exclusion or denial of benefits under “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

At oral argument, several conservative justices repeatedly returned to the question of when — if ever — the consideration of race would no longer be necessary in college admissions. The justices pointed to the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger from 2003 in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion said racial preferences were not likely to be needed in 25 years.

That ruling 20 years ago was the first affirmative action decision by a Supreme Court on which White men did not make up a majority. Five of the nine justices had never cast a vote on the issue, although some — notably Clarence Thomas and Sotomayor — have said affirmative action played a dramatic role in their lives. Those two justices came away from the experience with vividly different views.

Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina, has been the boldest defender of what she prefers to call “race-sensitive” admission policies and has referred to herself as the “perfect affirmative action child.” Without a boost, she has said, she likely never would have have been transported from Bronx housing projects to the Ivy League. But she excelled as a top student at Princeton and Yale Law School once she got there.

Thomas, the second Black justice, countered that he felt affirmative action made his diploma from Yale Law practically worthless; he has been a fierce opponent of racial preferences in his three decades on the court. “Racial paternalism … can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination,” he has written.

The cases are Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

I think most people following the news was expecting this. No surprise here.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (20-1199)

I started to read this one but got distracted. Too many interesting opinions to read with the amount of time I have had to sit with them.

It's time.

We are at the point where the quality of the candidate should be the only factor.

Too bad both political parties don't consider that when nominating their presidential, senate or house candidates.

That's politics. It screws up many things.

It is actually a more nuanced decision than is being portrayed in the partisan media.

I tend to concur with the decision.

There are other factors that can be used to consider a candidate.

That probably means economic, the individuals work history, parental educational history and other factors.

The example that never sat well with anyone is why should the child of say a doctor of a different race be given an advantage simply because of their racial history.

I believe we are in agreement on this case.

I've only read the syllabus at this point. I intend to keep reading, but the syllabus is a good summary that isn't colored by the media needing to interpret based on their own bias.

j/c:

I guess it comes down to the question of...

If Will Smith's kids were to apply to xyz college... Would they get accepted because they were African American over an applicant who was a tiny bit more qualified and Greek American?

If yes, we have a problem.

I tend to lean toward the side of the decision, but there is something else that needs addressed as a byproduct of today's ruling.....and that is legacy admittance. If we are going to move forward and curb decision-making based on race, then I think there should be adjustments made based on a parent or relative 's alumni status, often based on philanthropic history to an institution or perceived wealth (thus potential philanthropic support), weighing in to the decision as well.

Amen

I agree with you on legacy admission... but disagree that it's the only thing that needs addressed... I think that we also need to address K-12 education to try and give more of the poorer areas better education... I don't have the answer, but think it's incredible sad that there are high school graduates that have a 6th grade reading level... we need to do better...

That was more or less how it was geared, and at one time it was probably necessary. I don't think that is the case any longer.

And, it wasn't even a tiny bit more qualified. In many cases there were huge gaps in SAT and ACT scores. Asians were hit the hardest.

I never liked that any more than the student who was accepted because their family could fund 50,000 books for the new library wing, though I can at least understand that to some degree. At least the university would gain something that would benefit the entire student body by bending the admission standard a bit.

Agreed. And I didn't mean to imply its the only thing. Our urban public schools are terrible here in Cleveland. My father was a high school teacher in Cleveland schools for 35+ years and it was only after he retired he shared stories about corrupt or inept administration. It's a crap ton of a lot of things but funding/investment is a part of it. But with a dwindling urban core riddled with poverty, funding can only go so far.

There will be some nasty spin to the opinion but I agree with their reasoning. Roberts really eviscerates the dissent in several spots. I have not read the concurring or dissent yet.


I got a good laugh out of that one.

.

you must believe discrimination doesn’t exist in murica to say that.

No, they wouldn't be accepted over another student because they were black. They would be accepted because Will Smith is rich and famous. It would be prestigious for the university to have them included in the student body.

There's a very easy work around to this ruling and one I would find a much better basis for enrolling people of color as well as white students who have to that point been placed at a disadvantage.

Many middle and upper class school districts are much better funded per student than urban and the poor neighborhoods. Their teachers are paid much higher salaries which draws the best teachers. As such I think it would be better if colleges and universities used a "disadvantage in education" aspect to base a certain portion of admittance. For people to pretend that the education system in this country is equal for all students would be one of the craziest things I've heard. Not nearly the craziest thing however mind you. Why this is the case is an argument we can all have if we so chose to. We could blame the politicians, the parents or a number of other issues if we so choose to. But what you can't do is blame the students who want a higher education that have been placed into schools that perform poorly.

This would not be based on race even though some may try to portray it that way. What it would be is an opportunity for students through no fault of their own, who were placed in schools whose performance and test scores were poor. There is most certainly a huge variable in education that exists from school district to school district across this country. Hell, from state to state for that matter. Giving those who have been disadvantaged during that process an opportunity isn't a bad thing.

School funding is not synonymous with quality. Baltimore has 4th best funded schools in the nation. They are abysmal in quality and not getting better as the funding goes up.

You are correct that it isn't always the case. The majority of the time however it is. And in no way does that change the fact that there is a large segment of high school students that are enrolled in underperforming schools and punishing them for that based on test scores alone isn't a good thing. They deserve opportunities too.

im still putting this all together, but aren't asian americans overrepresented in the college demographics?

They deserve better schools than what our public education system provides now.

That’s because they generally live in more affluent school districts and have access to great public or private K-12 schools, unlike the forgotten inner city kids in the hood.

Way you stereotype.

BTW the written opinion covers the diminishing number of Asians at Harvard.

Stuff like that is always going to exist to some extent. You deal with that when and where it happens. I don't think we will ever have a 100% homogenized society. It's human nature to segregate to some degree.

They most certainly do as I had hoped to convey. But as of now that seemingly is not being addressed properly. So my contention is that you can't simply discriminate against students who were sent to very poorly performing schools based solely on test scores. There are certainly at least some students who can still manage to thrive in such schools where chaos and disorganization seems to run rampant. Where many students are actually prohibited from moving forward because classes slow to the learning level of those who are behind. But let's face it, such an environment is not conducive for learning when it comes to the vast majority of students.

I find punishing or excluding such high school students for a situation far beyond their control is not good for anyone.

And this does not only happen in school districts of color. In many case this also happens in rural white communities.

I'm at a similar spot as you as far as reading the details.

I've never been a fan of affirmative action in general, so from that perspective I don't really disagree with the decision. What gets me is knowing that nothing will be there to take AA's place. As flawed as AA is, there's always been (and still is) work to do in getting us where we need to be. Nobody can convince me that the people celebrating this decision are going to push us any closer to addressing the ongoing root causes of inequality (in this case, born out in college admissions).

Not really. And seriously, how can one group be overrepresented if they qualify in larger numbers?

Either you make the grade or you don't. It's kind of like the NBA, either you make the team or you don't. There isn't any effort to make those teams more representative of the general population, nor should there.

So no matter what school system you were educated in, whether that be a district where they education is terrible or not, all that matters is "Either you make the grade or you don't"?

Because there are a lot of difference between being educated in an upper middle class school district and an inner city school district or an impoverished rural district. Surely you realize that.

What you're basically saying is a person who has nothing more than some basic hand tools and a shovel should be able to build a custom home just as well and in the same amount of time as someone with top shelf electrical tools and heavy equipment. Nothing about that is based in reality.

But it certainly would benefit those who have been given a much better public education. And that's the problem here.

So you believe racial criteria should be used to make up for if a school district is impoverished or not?

Actually had you have been following the thread, you would see that none of what I propose is based on race at all but rather the performance of the schools the students come from....


Hopefully that helps to clarify it for you.

So then you are ok with this decision? Sometimes it is hard to tell with you since you like to just argue about stuff.

Actually I'm okay with it if there are steps taken to implement the type of thing I'm suggesting. I think this was the basic principal on which AA was put in place to begin with. To give children that came from impoverished backgrounds an opportunity to move up in class moving forward. Basing it strictly upon race is something I certainly understand people having an issue with.

But if they wipe out any opportunity to give those who haven't had a legitimate chance to succeed no chance to do so by basing opportunities strictly on test scores alone, then I have an issue with it. Even a flawed opportunity for advancement of people with little chances based on the education system they've been in is better than no opportunity. You're asking me a question that can only be answered by how this thing works out long term.

And you accusing others by claiming all they want to do is argue is most certainly calling the kettle black. You see, nobody has tried to start an argument yet somehow you felt compelled to bring it up. That's the beginning of how one erodes a good debate/discussion. Don't play coy here.

I tried to reply earlier, but got an error message.

Basically i said we need to fix the problem, but fixing them isn't by denying entry for a student who passed all the entrance exams by a higher margin then some enrolled with lesser scores.

Try to figure out how to equal things out at the beginning, not the end.

You are also assuming things weren't equal to begin with. Maybe the other student is just smarter and/or worked harder.

That does happen.

I don't know how to fix it, but setting admission numbers by race is wrong.


Also...what makes a school district under perform? I don't think it is just the building or the teachers. Teachers have been assigned all across their districts to see that quality teachers are available in all schools. We are talking public schools here. Privates are entirely different.

Which isn't something I'm proposing at all. I have actually claimed it should be done based on giving students in poorly performing school districts an opportunity. And no, there's no way anyone can seriously claim that the public education system is equal across this country. I'm all for fixing that just as you are. What I'm against is in the meanwhile punishing those children facing such disadvantages. I think you have your mind fixated on this being a race issue on my part rather than opportunity for all disadvantaged youth in general.

I'm not "assuming things aren't equal to begin with." They aren't. That's a factual statement that's not based on assumptions.

Well man, I don't know what to tell you.

There is a saying....Life isn't fair.

You also have to understand most of this is in reference to top tier schools. All of your state schools are pretty much open to anybody.

meaning only top tier students from top tier schools in top tier neighborhoods with their top tier families and their top tier money have most of the access.

Yep life isn’t fair when the rich discriminate against the poor.

Somehow no one is stopping Harvard from enrolling good talent. Even top talent that doesn't come from a "top tier" high school in a "top tier" neighborhood. They just can't use race as a criteria anymore. People will continue to conflate the idea that if you can't use race that mean poor people will be left behind. It is a sad, very sad, idea that people would even think that.

Poor people do get left behind. That's fact. It doesn't mean they will get left behind, it just means they are more likely to get left behind. Just like if one of a kid's parents is incarcerated or absent. It is sad. Recognizing that fact isn't sad, what's sad is trying to create an argument that those things aren't reality. Skin color doesn't have anything to do with those set of facts.